4 ms·

What I'd be interested in are some graphs that compare deaths of January, February, March and April for 2018, 2019 and 2020. To see the expected trend from 2018

What I'd be interested in are some graphs that compare deaths of January, February, March and April for 2018, 2019 and 2020. To see the expected trend from 2018/19 and the reality of 2020.

jhwang5 6y ago
They have the charts in the article
- mschuetz 6y ago
  Ah thanks, I've got the bad habit of not opening articles anymore since most of them prevent ad blockers or demand tracking rights with obnoxious page filling popups, nowadays.
- tjr225 6y ago
  Still, I wish you could see specific years vs this year. For instance there were fewer deaths in Michigan in March of 2020 than in 2019, but I'm sure that would be different if you averaged it over the course of four years.
ceejayoz 6y ago
The NYT has been doing this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...
- pacala 6y ago
  ... in a sensationalist manner. If you scroll down low enough, you stumble upon per country multi-year comparisons. Notice how for Sweden, Switzerland, France or England the spike is not much higher than the seasonal 2017 flu. Moreover the peak of the 2017 flu is cut out of the graph for France and England, as a couple weeks before/after new years are cut out from the graph for aesthetic[?!] reasons. For a publication that wants to be taken seriously, cutting out the most relevant comparison point is embarrassing. And, of course, no breakdown by age.
  - Drdrdrq 6y ago
    Thank you. It is embarrasing to see even "smart" people accept these charts on face value, without diving in and understanding them. Just... thank you.
    - Isinlor 6y ago
      Never accept charts at face value - try to go to source and look at gotchas. In case of EuroMOMO data the gotcha is that European countries are not done counting yet. Compare numbers in bulletin for week 15 and 16: https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ The numbers will grow further.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    Take a look at EuroMOMO: https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ Compare graph for week 15 and 16. The data in NYT are for 5 of April, but we were not done counting deaths. The true numbers are substantially higher. England is especially high.
    - pacala 6y ago
      Thanks for the link. If anything, these graphs are assuaging. I notice 2 things: * The spike is steep, but it appears to have quickly receded. Perhaps an artifact of what you are calling 'not done counting deaths'. Would you elaborate, what's holding back the data, when can we count [sic] on accurate counts? * The spike is not that tall. In deaths/week, 2017 peaks at 70k deaths and 2020 peaks at 86k over all age groups. Going to the 15-64 demographics, turns out that 2018 peaks at 8.9k, whereas 2020 peaks at 9.9k. So we've got 1k extra deaths per week for a few weeks at a population of 200M+ people, the end is nigh?! https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ PS. Speaking of sensationalist, this is a great time to start presenting data using honest charts that start at zero, and not arbitrary high values [40k/7k] to magnify small variability. PS2. Does anyone know how to get the euromomo dataset? In a middle of a global pandemic, a bit sad that a critical piece of data is unavailable for independent verification / presentation.
vanniv 6y ago
Those are the graphs we really need. Especially when you consider things like the dramatic drop in reported mortality from things like heart disease the last few months according to the preliminary data. But preliminary data isn't very good quality ever, so it is hard to tell how much of that is just bad data, how much is coronavirus killing people that were going to die in only weeks anyway, and how much is misreporting. But in six months or so, when the data start to settle down, we will find out which direction we are miscounting in. (Clearly we are miscounting in both directions by significant amounts, but it's hard to tell the comparative magnitude)
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Unless you think deaths are going to go to zero next month, we can put the "is coronavirus killing people that were going to die in only weeks anyway" theory to bed. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's certainly not the case that 100% of coronavirus victims were about to die anyway. But it seems very plausible that 10% were, and I think it's fair to consider that a significant overcount.
    - dvdkhlng 6y ago
      I think the question that you're trying to ask is answered in part by the publication "COVID-19 – exploring the implications of long-term condition type and extent of multimorbidity on years of life lost:" [1] TL;DR: more than a decade of life-time lost on average per victim that dies of novel coronavirus. [1] https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75/v1 https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75/v1
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        This is what I read about the Great Smog in London. People tried to explain away deaths by saying all the people that died would have died in a few months anyways. But not supported by death records.

What I'd be interested in are some graphs that compare deaths of January, February, March and April for 2018, 2019 and 2020. To see the expected trend from 2018/19 and the reality of 2020.

jhwang5 6y ago

They have the charts in the article

mschuetz 6y ago
Ah thanks, I've got the bad habit of not opening articles anymore since most of them prevent ad blockers or demand tracking rights with obnoxious page filling popups, nowadays.
tjr225 6y ago
Still, I wish you could see specific years vs this year. For instance there were fewer deaths in Michigan in March of 2020 than in 2019, but I'm sure that would be different if you averaged it over the course of four years.

ceejayoz 6y ago

The NYT has been doing this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...

pacala 6y ago
... in a sensationalist manner. If you scroll down low enough, you stumble upon per country multi-year comparisons. Notice how for Sweden, Switzerland, France or England the spike is not much higher than the seasonal 2017 flu. Moreover the peak of the 2017 flu is cut out of the graph for France and England, as a couple weeks before/after new years are cut out from the graph for aesthetic[?!] reasons. For a publication that wants to be taken seriously, cutting out the most relevant comparison point is embarrassing. And, of course, no breakdown by age.
- Drdrdrq 6y ago
  Thank you. It is embarrasing to see even "smart" people accept these charts on face value, without diving in and understanding them. Just... thank you.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    Never accept charts at face value - try to go to source and look at gotchas. In case of EuroMOMO data the gotcha is that European countries are not done counting yet. Compare numbers in bulletin for week 15 and 16: https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ The numbers will grow further.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  Take a look at EuroMOMO: https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ https://www.euromomo.eu/bulletins/2020-16/ Compare graph for week 15 and 16. The data in NYT are for 5 of April, but we were not done counting deaths. The true numbers are substantially higher. England is especially high.
  - pacala 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. If anything, these graphs are assuaging. I notice 2 things: * The spike is steep, but it appears to have quickly receded. Perhaps an artifact of what you are calling 'not done counting deaths'. Would you elaborate, what's holding back the data, when can we count [sic] on accurate counts? * The spike is not that tall. In deaths/week, 2017 peaks at 70k deaths and 2020 peaks at 86k over all age groups. Going to the 15-64 demographics, turns out that 2018 peaks at 8.9k, whereas 2020 peaks at 9.9k. So we've got 1k extra deaths per week for a few weeks at a population of 200M+ people, the end is nigh?! https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ PS. Speaking of sensationalist, this is a great time to start presenting data using honest charts that start at zero, and not arbitrary high values [40k/7k] to magnify small variability. PS2. Does anyone know how to get the euromomo dataset? In a middle of a global pandemic, a bit sad that a critical piece of data is unavailable for independent verification / presentation.

vanniv 6y ago

Those are the graphs we really need. Especially when you consider things like the dramatic drop in reported mortality from things like heart disease the last few months according to the preliminary data. But preliminary data isn't very good quality ever, so it is hard to tell how much of that is just bad data, how much is coronavirus killing people that were going to die in only weeks anyway, and how much is misreporting. But in six months or so, when the data start to settle down, we will find out which direction we are miscounting in. (Clearly we are miscounting in both directions by significant amounts, but it's hard to tell the comparative magnitude)

ceejayoz 6y ago
Unless you think deaths are going to go to zero next month, we can put the "is coronavirus killing people that were going to die in only weeks anyway" theory to bed. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's certainly not the case that 100% of coronavirus victims were about to die anyway. But it seems very plausible that 10% were, and I think it's fair to consider that a significant overcount.
  - dvdkhlng 6y ago
    I think the question that you're trying to ask is answered in part by the publication "COVID-19 – exploring the implications of long-term condition type and extent of multimorbidity on years of life lost:" [1] TL;DR: more than a decade of life-time lost on average per victim that dies of novel coronavirus. [1] https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75/v1 https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75/v1
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      This is what I read about the Great Smog in London. People tried to explain away deaths by saying all the people that died would have died in a few months anyways. But not supported by death records.